Overall, this is a decent movie so I'm writing about it here rather than in the "bad" section. Unfortunately, the best parts occur within the first 30 minutes. After that, I kept thinking, "This is okay, but hasn't this been done so many times before?" Some of the 3-D visuals are stunning and the movie manages to generate some suspense, but I think I'd rather watch 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968), MAROONED (1969) or APOLLO 13 (1995). Sandra Bullock in space? Maybe. But I think MACHETE KILLS IN SPACE will be more suitable for repeat viewings.

Logged

"Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me either. Just pretty much leave me the hell alone."

Interesting that you should say this. Gravity has been very strongly anticipated, and some are calling it the best space movie since 2001. But honestly, 2001 does not really do much for me, and the trailers for Gravity aren't showing much beyond Sandra Bullock screaming into her spacesuit as the satellite goes up in flames.

If there is a twist to Gravity, or the trailer is holding back a very significant plot development or aspect, then I would be more interested. As far as realistic space movies go, I far prefer Moon (2009) to 2001.

Logged

"Many others since have tried & failed at making a watchable parasite slug movie" - LilCerberus

Interesting that you should say this. Gravity has been very strongly anticipated, and some are calling it the best space movie since 2001. But honestly, 2001 does not really do much for me, and the trailers for Gravity aren't showing much beyond Sandra Bullock screaming into her spacesuit as the satellite goes up in flames.

If there is a twist to Gravity, or the trailer is holding back a very significant plot development or aspect, then I would be more interested. As far as realistic space movies go, I far prefer Moon (2009) to 2001.

One reason I went to see GRAVITY was its high rating of 98% on rottentomatoes.com. I just don't see it. I could justify a rating around 75% or slightly higher, but that would be about the limit. Without the 3-D, I would probably rate this lower. There are no major twists or surprises. Overall, this is a routine "trapped in space" movie. Again, it's decent, but nothing that will blow you away.

Logged

"Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me either. Just pretty much leave me the hell alone."

Interesting. I really liked the director's last movie (Children of Men) but I just can't get excited about this one. It might just be the combination of Sandra Bullock and George Clooney turning me off, but the trailer did nothing for me....

Logged

Through the darkness of future pastThe magician longs to seeOne chance opts between two worldsFire walk with me

I never let science get in the way of my fiction when it comes to sci-fi movies, but I still found this article in today's Yahoo News hilarious:

'Gravity' slammed by astrophysicist for inaccuracies

"Gravity," Alfonso Cuarón's 3-D space epic starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, soared to the top of the North American box office on its opening weekend, earning $55.8 million — the biggest October opening of all time, according to the Hollywood Reporter — and raves from critics.

But according to world-renowned astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, the film is littered with inaccuracies in its depiction of space.

For example, Tyson wrote on Twitter, why was Bullock's hair, "in otherwise convincing" zero-gravity scenes, not floating "freely on her head"?

Tyson, who saw the movie on Sunday, continued the rant/review in a series of tweets to his 1.4 million followers.

Tyson was not alone in his criticism. "Gravity" was picked apart by several members of the scientific community.

"The way I am seeing it, the shuttle was wings level, payload bay up (Z), right wing into the orbital velocity vector (X direction of travel), nose in Y," Michael Interbartolo III, a NASA Mission Control veteran, wrote on Blastr.com. "The Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris [MMOD] (though most were not really micro Meteoroid) impact puts it into a roll about Y with it still traveling in the velocity vector X, and why are the Forward and Aft reaction control jets not firing to damp the ramp since they were intact in the trailer? When the Remote Manipulator System (RMS, the Shuttle robotic arm) breaks, it was rolling and moving forward with the shuttle, but then with the camera and the Earth in the background the arm goes into a radial direction (Z) away from the earth (thus the opening rate between the shuttle and RMS making it seem like the shuttle is plunging down) with a tumble about the radial axis (now a roll about X).

"I am all for an entertaining movie, but when I go into a Michael Bay 'Armageddon' movie I know to turn the brain off," Interbartolo added. "This one tries to pass itself off as something more than that, but to me, it is the same flash and sizzle with a pretty lax understanding of orbital mechanics and spaceflight operations."

Others, though, were more forgiving.

"I love sci-fi movies but hate it when the science is needlessly trampled by the fiction," Tony Rice, a NASA volunteer, wrote in a blog post. "There are no such problems in Alfonso Cuarón’s immersive science-fiction action thriller 'Gravity.' The film gets so much right, so little wrong and only gets the sci wrong when the fi demands it."

Cuarón, for his part, said that he expected the criticism.

"This is not a documentary," the director told collectSPACE.com. "It is a piece of fiction."

And even Tyson conceded he enjoyed the film despite its flaws.

My Tweets hardly ever convey opinion. Mostly perspectives on the world. But if you must know, I enjoyed #Gravity very much.

@zelmo73 - thanks for that! There is definitely a difference between a Michael Bay movie, in which all critical judgement is suspended, and a movie like Gravity that seems to take the subject matter more seriously. I don't think I'll see it in the cinema; the DVD will be out sooner or later.

Logged

"Many others since have tried & failed at making a watchable parasite slug movie" - LilCerberus

Overall, this is a decent movie so I'm writing about it here rather than in the "bad" section. Unfortunately, the best parts occur within the first 30 minutes. After that, I kept thinking, "This is okay, but hasn't this been done so many times before?" Some of the 3-D visuals are stunning and the movie manages to generate some suspense, but I think I'd rather watch 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968), MAROONED (1969) or APOLLO 13 (1995).

Amazing how different people can look at the same facts and come to opposite conclusions. My thought while watching this was, "Wow, I haven't ever seen a movie quite like this before. I mean, there were bits and parts of it in 2001, MAROONED and APOLLO 13, but this is almost a totally new genre!" What makes this one different is that it's almost entirely an action/survival movie, done in almost real time. It's like the section of 2001 where Hal cuts off the astronauts air, only extended through the entire movie. There isn't a lot of backstory or drama, everything takes place in Zero-G (until the final escape). I give it 4.5/5.

Logged

"The basic plot is that Donna Speir and Hope Marie Carlton, the two undercover DEA agent Playboy Playmates from the last movie, are still running around in jungle shorts, cowboy boots and spaghetti strap T-shirts, firing their machine guns at drug smugglers, Filipino communist guerrillas, and corrupt federal agents while their two friends, Lisa London and Miss May 1984 Patty Duffek, lounge around the pool a lot and talk on speaker phones that look like fax machines."-Joe Bob on SAVAGE BEACH

Also, this movie focused entirely on the astronauts in space. It asks "What will these people do to get home?" Marooned, Apollo 13, and others focus on the ground crew. They ask "What will the ground crew do to bring the astronauts home?"

It was cool, and if you are a fan of Sandra Bullock in panties for a while, and barking like a dog, there's something for your inner fetishist. I thought it was good not great, but I was kind of bored for the 2nd half of the flick if I'm being honest.

While I think it was mostly supposed to be a lofty story about a woman regaining her Will to Live, I think the entire film was just a delivery system for Sandy's pantie wearing and barking. explains why they paid so little attention to the sciencey parts.